Friday, January 19, 2007

Friday 01/19 A.M. Quickie:All NFL Conf. Champs, All Day

Is it mere coincidence that the last weekday before the NFL conference championship games is one of the slowest sports-news days we've seen in weeks (or even months)? Unlikely. It's because the same cabal that controls sports wants you to focus entirely on Sunday's games.

In the NFC, it's the conference's most marquee franchise (and it's No. 1 seed) versus the best story in the NFL of the year -- if not the decade (or, dare I say, ever). The playoffs' most maligned QB (Grossman) vs. the league's most valuable QB (Brees). Urlacher and the Bears D vs. the best offense in the NFL, showcasing - at the very least - the most intriguing rookie of the year.

But I'm much more interested in YOUR analysis of the game -- the biggest subplots and intrigues, the biggest X-factors, the biggest challenges and, of course, your picks. So let's light up the Comments section with your final NFL conference championship goodness.

Simply put: You have no soul if you're not rooting for the Saints to advance (unless, of course, you're a Bears fan. And having just come from a trip to Chicago this week, they are fired up).

Oh: And if you have input on the day's other big storylines, put 'em in the Comments section too. Actually, to me, the most intriguing result from last night/news of the morning is that the No. 1 h.s. hoops team in the country (Oak Hill) lost to Chicago's Simeon and Derrick Rose (28 pts, 9 ast) last night on ESPN.

126 comments:

Sorry, I cant get into the NFL games this weekend after the Ravens' flameout last weekend. Am I alone in going through this "mourning" period after my teams lose? I dont mean being depressed or anything, but I just dont feel like watching other NFL games now. Are fans of other playoff losing teams going through this?

I am more into the playoffs if my team is in it, but I don't have a "mourning" period. I mean, I am bummed when my teams lose, but it doesn't stop me from watching the rest of the games. That beaing said:

Colts over Pats: I don't need any more Brady/Bill B. cocksuckery.

Bears over Saints: And I am a Packer fan, so this one will sting. I guess I just want someone to root against in the Super Bowl.

My picks at the start of the season: Panthers & Bengals (ouch).

Picks at the start of the playoffs: Eagles & Chargers (ouch again)

So really, don't trust my prognosticating. I think I put too much of who I "want" to win in the picks.

In the NFC the top 2 seeds held serve and the Saint now travel to Chicago to face the team that has been the best in the NFC all season but Chicago play of late especially on the defensive side of the ball has got to have Bears fans worried. With the saints you have to think are the really this good or is there run about to end and we find out that it was all smoke and mirrors. They way I see it is that the Saints have too many weapons on offense for the Bears to be able to shut down and I just have a feeling that the Bears Offense will not be able to keep up.

Prediction:Saints 27 Bears 13Game MVP: Deuce McCallister

AFC ChampionshipNew England Patriots at Indianapolis Colts

Is there a better rivalry in the NFL today?? Not one that I can think of that has played so many big games over the last 6 years. And this one promises to be a classic. The Patriots coming of the out of nowhere, should not of won this game, victory over the Chargers will be facing the Team that has probably been the best defensive team throughout the playoffs but my question on the Indy defense is was it more the teams they played or is there defense that much better then it was in the regular season. Personally I think it is more a product of the teams they have played then the defense being that much better. Unlike the Ravens and the Chiefs the patriots have a multi-dimensional offense and they are not afraid to use whatever play, formation or personal package it takes to beat your defense. Ultimately I think this game will come down to the play of the 2 QB's and if that is the case you have to go with the guy who has been there and knows how to win the big game.

I really think that the Colts are going to win. Like I said earlier in the week, Manning has come to accept the fact that he doesn't need to throw 3 or 4 touchdowns to win a ball game. He's become a game manager type of QB and he's fine with that. I think it'll come down to the battle of (my opinion) the top 2 rookie RB's in Addai and Maroney. Whoever has the better game will translate into a victory.

I have no idea what to say about the NFC. I don't know who will win; I don't know who to cheer for(yes I have a heart). Who knows??

If Bears and Pats both win, please no Super Shuffle 2!!! The first time was bad enough and the game was painful to watch. Even though I am a long time Pat's fan, Ditka giving Fridge a TD and not giving one to Sweetness was a brutal decision.

Pats over Colts. Manning leads the Colts down the field to set up Vinnatieri for the potential game winner which he makes to tie/put the Colts up. However, they left too much time on the clock and Brady marches down and Gastkowski kicks the game winner sending the Pats to the SB.

(I can't hate Adam V. He won 3 SBs for NE)

As a Pats fan I would rather the Bears win since I think that's an easier game for them in the SB, but I think the Saints will.

If the Colts do happen to win, I won't be turning on espn until after the SB. If you think the cocksuckery of B&B is bad...Manning's cocksuckery will be 5x worse. And I hate having two weeks between the conference championships and the SB.

I have a nasty feeling the Colts will be too strong for the Pats, regardless of how well or badly Manning plays. There won't be any need for a game-winning kick: Colts by 8. My girlfriend's a Bostonian, so the Pats are my adopted team (living in England also makes it easier to root for a team from, well, New England), which the Manchester United-hater in me definitely feels uncomfortable about. Never good to be a glory supporter...

I will agree that the media blows Manning too, but he at least deserves some of it. Brady has the fortune of being a pretty good QB on a team with no glaring weaknesses in an era of mediocrity. If Manning and Brady switched teams the past 7 years, people would be talking about how Brady can't win a big game and how Manning is the best ever. Don't fault Manning because he has been on a lesser team than Brady.

Saints may be the best story of the year but by no way does that mean best ever.

One thing that is holding me back from wanting to root for NO is the fact that Tom Benson is an ass.

This is the same guy that in the wake of the hurricane almost moved the team to San Antone and almost sold the team to a group of investors (Rogers and Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment) for an no questions asked $1 Billion.

Now that they are the media darlings - he's soaking it up on the sidelines and milking it for all its worth, when we all know that in a year or two year's time he could very well pull in the Mayflour Vans and move the team to LA or sell to the Canucks.....

Seriously Dan, the Bears are not the marquee NFC team. The 49ers and Cowboys have both won 5 Super Bowls to Chicago's 1. The Redskins always lead the league in merchandise sales. The Giants are always having their cock sucked by the NFL brass. The Bears are no higher than 5th.

I'm definitely going through a mourning period since the Eagles lost, and therefore I guess I have no soul because I can't root for the Saints. I truthfully don't care all that much who wins in the NFC Championship because I'm still bitter. I also hate Peyton Manning (and Eli Manning for that matter), so I feel like I can't root for the Colts, but I definitely don't want to see the Pats win yet again. All in all, with my team out and no vested interest in any of these teams, I really don't care who wins.

The Redskins? They are top 10 in merchandising sales, maybe. Last year, the Eagles were #1, and this year was the Steelers.

After the Steelers and Eagles, the Oakland Raiders ranked third on this year's list, followed by the Dallas Cowboys, the New England Patriots, the Green Bay Packers, the Indianapolis Colts, the Chicago Bears, the New York Giants and the Denver Broncos.

Sales were tracked from April 1, 2005 until March 31, 2006.

Redskins at best were 11th this year. Not saying they aren't a marquee team, but in terms of merchandise sales, they aren't even close.

Last year when the Ravens completely sucked and didnt make the playoffs, I had no problem watching every playoff game. But this year, since they were in it and I had my hopes dashed, I am in no mood to watch the games. As for my predictions:

Colts 27 Pats 21. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut eventually. I think the Pats were able to use guile to get past Marty. The Colts actually do have alot of talent and are playing at home.

SAints 31 Bears 24. I think the Saints offense will run through the depleted Bears D. Just too many weapons for Grossman to keep up with.

Brady drove the team late to wins in 2 SuperBowls(2 MVPs)and for the third SB over the Eagles he played well, especially in the 2 AFC games:(Brady led the Patriots to victories over the Indianapolis Colts and the Pittsburgh Steelers. Brady played his best game of the year in Pittsburgh despite requiring IV treatment the previous night when he had a temperature of 103 degrees. Against the NFL's best defensive team, Brady recorded a quarterback passer rating of 130.5, his highest of the season.)

Brady in Indy would have won multiple SB's by now, Manning has choked under pressure in the playoffs and blown games for his team. 5-6 in the playoffs with 16 td's and 13 int's

I can't see how any of you can take the colts. Until the beat the Pats in the playoffs, you can't. Not to mention wasn't last year suppose to be their year? Who beat them? A streaking veteran team. Sound familiar? Pats 27, Colts 20

Don't think the Saints can stop the Bears running game. Grossman makes a couple big throws on play action and doesn't make any stupid ones and the bears win a close one. Bears 17, Saints 14.

cmfost - I was just about to bring up that same stat. Since '97 one home team and one road team have advanced to the SB.

I think the Saints will beat the Bears, Grossman is way to much of a wild card. You just don't know what your going to get with him.

So that leaves Indy winning. I hate both of these teams. I hate Brady, Bill B., Cry Baby Cory (that goes back to his Cinci days) and the Pats in general. On the Colts I hate Manning and.......well I guess just Manning, but I really hate him. Tony D is a good guy so I guess I'll root for him.

Luke Bell,I hate being a homer, and I try to temper my comments accordingly. However, how can you say that about Brady. For the last two superbowls all we've heard about in New England from the National media are the "Glaring weakness" you've just reffered to.

"They can't possibly do it again." they say. "To many people left, to many injuries, there linebakers are too old, no running game(in 03) no recievers this year, weak secondary"...and on and on...

Everytime they've come up against teams like Indy or the Rams no one piked them because of there "glaring weakness" Through it all they have kept winning and there has been 1 constant, Tom Brady.

Now having said all that I understand people get sick of one team, I hated the Cowboys in the early 90's when my Pats sucked. I'm sure in 5-10 years the Pats will fade again, and another team will take prominence and I will hate them, because my team sucks. So while I understand where you are coming from, I couldn't disagree more.

31-12 Saints, too much offense and as Brian pointed out yesterday Rexcrement is going to be too overconfident. Which for me is sad.I too would like a rematch of SB XX. I was at my grandfather's funeral that day...I'm still scarred.

Hard not to root for the saints tho. Especially cuz one of my good friends from my time in the military has been a die hard Saints fan 4 life.

I don't know if Brady would have led some of those Colts teams to the playoffs. Their defense was awful. Te reason the Colts go is because of Manning. Take him out, and what do you have? I don't think Brady has the same skill set to run that offense with the success Manning has. Brady is a good QB, so I am sure they would still be an above average team, but they would have to rely on Brady to win every single week by scoring 30+ points, and I don't think that would happen. I know Pats fans disagree, but whatever. The Pats win because they are a solid team, and every other team has weaknesses the Pats are able to exploit. They have won 3 Super Bowls, but they aren't a dominant team in my opinion. The Elway/Davis Broncos, the 90's Cowboys, and Favre & Young's Super Bowl Winners would all throttle the Patriots.

Brady plays well in big spots, no denying that. But the Pats win because they had an overall better team.

The national media says they have weaknesses, not me. I say that, though they have been depleted in areas, they are still one of the most, if not the most, sound team in the league in every area, even more so in their Super Bowl winning seasons. Every team they beat had *HUGE* weaknesses, be it shitty defenses, Mike Martz's insanity, etc. So the Patriots replace a solid linebacker with another solid linebacker. Ohhh, huge hit there. And don't throw that Pro Bowl junk at me. That's a popularity contest, and is also driven by stats, so teams like the Pats that just win with no glaring numbers will obviously not be well represented.

I don't buy the "until they do it in the playoffs" crap about the Colts over the Pats. They won two games in a row in Foxboro. No, the stakes weren't as high, but now the Colts players KNOW they can beat them, and they certainly aren't going to freeze up in a home game against them.

It was one thing when the Pats had won every game against them....then you can say yeah, they're in the Colts' heads. But 2 convincing wins in NE....I don't buy for a second that the Colts think "oh wait, those were just regular season games".

So the genius will have to come up with something else. And only then, would we be able to restore some sort of "in their heads" description of the rivalry.

I usually have a "mourning" period...I sure as hell didn't watch the World Series once the Mets lost. But I'm a Jets fan, and can't be upset when no one expected them to do nearly so well or make the playoffs at all in the first place. So no worries this year!

My picks: Pats over ColtsThis is one where I can't pick the other way, and will only believe once it's already happened. The Pats will find a way to win, and Peyton, who hasn't even been playing well in Indy's wins, will find a way to choke. I think it'll probably be a close game though.

Saints over BearsI think the Saints are going to put a great game together, and Deuce McAllister is going to do whatever needs to be done. I'm not as confident with this pick, but I think the Saints come out more prepared and confident.

I'll be rooting for the Colts since they have two former Syracuse players (Harrison and Freeney) and I also hate the Pats. However if I was betting and I am not, the Pats are more likely to win.

I must be souless Dan S. since I am rooting for the Bears. I just like them better. That doesn't mean I don't like New Orleans as a city. I would be happy for them if their team wins. However despite what people think, their sports teams don't really have anything to do with the city. How many players are from NO on the Saints? It is a professional sports team and has nothing to do with the hurricane.

People may not have houses to live in but they should be happy that their local pro team won a game?

Frankly as much as I like sports, I realize that it really doesn't matter. However I am going to my 15 year old's track meet tonight and then racing over to watch my 11 year old play in his basketball game. His team is 4-0, Yahooo!!!!

Brady plays well in Indy and in Domes: In two previous games at the RCA Dome (both wins), Brady threw for 438 yards with five touchdowns and two interceptions. The Patriots quarterback is 10-0 in domed stadiums and 19-1 on artificial turf, which even for him is off-the-charts good.

Hell yes we are fired up... We are going to tear apart America's Favorite "I feel guilty that I haven't helped aid Katrina anywhere near as much as I could/should have; I feel guilty I am completely unaffected way away from New Orleans, so I am going to root for their NFL franchise to clear my conscience!" Team

1. Anybody that says they are sick of the Brady/Belicheck love fest is living in a fantasy land. Every time I turn on ESPN its Peyton this, Harrison that. Its fucking nauseating. I haven't heard shit about the pats this week except when all the "experts" chime in to say the Pats will lose because its "Peyton's Time".

2. Fuck the Saints. I'm so sick of this story about how its so great they came back from the pits of hell and had a miraculous season. Its not that big of a story. They had a loaded team and they are in a division that rivals the NFC West in shittiness. Sanoff you have so much Saint juice all over your chin its weighing on your judgement. Wipe it up and get over this bullshit story. I'm not a Bears fan by any stretch but I will be rooting like hell for them to end this feel good bullshit story once and for all. Fuck Drew Brees, Fuck Deuce, Reggie and Marques, Fuck them all. I hope they enjoy being Cannonized.

Steve, you're an idiot. There's no way that the Bears are NOT the #1 marquee franchise in the NFC. Chicago is arguably the most sports-crazy city in the country, and while we have Cubs-Sox divisions, the only thing that unites all of this city is football and Bears. Trust me, no city is more behind its team and invested in its play than Chicago is with the Bears.

Add in the history/legacy (Halas, Butkus, Ditka, Payton, etc.); the best rivalry in pro football (Bears-Packers); the continuing tradition of hard-hitting, hard-nosed football; Soldier Field (even after the bizarre makeover, one of the best stadiums in sports, considering it's RIGHT on Lake Michigan); cold weather; da Superfans; and the simple fact that Dallas are pretty-boy wannabes, the Redskins have an offensive nickname and have blown since Snyder took over, the 49ers would rather be hosting a wine and cheese party, and the Giants hate their coach and split their local fanbase with the Jets, and you see why da Chicago Bears are the NFC's marquee franchise (and arguably the most valuable commodity in the NFL, if they were to ever be sold).

In the days leading up to the Eagles-Saints game last week, New Orleans coach Sean Payton was peppered with questions from the media about the team’s terrible postseason history. You know the story: just five playoff appearances and one measly wild-card victory in 40 years of football before last weekend.

Finally, he lost patience.

To paraphrase Payton’s response: “What does the past have to do with the future? Have any of you guys ever even kissed a woman? God, I hate you people.”

We feel the same way about the average media ass clown, Sean.

But history does have a place. Do Mike Ditka, Ricky Williams, Archie Manning and toeless 63-yard-field-goal kicker Tom Dempsey have anything to do with how the Saints will fare this weekend in the NFC championship game? Of course not.

However, the history of teams in the championship game does mean something.

This is why, as keepers of the coldest and hardest of football facts, we set out to study these championship-level teams and draw some conclusions.

After four days buried in the archival dungeon of the Cold, Hard Football Facts cardboard-box world headquarters, we emerged – drunk, pale and squinty-eyed – clinging to all the numbers that really matter come championship weekend.

THE BACKGROUNDOur foray into relevant history begins with 1978. It was kind of a crappy year – Jimmy Carter was failing to put out fires all over the world, two Popes died, Kevin Federline was born – but it was a significant season for the NFL, which made several major changes in 1978.

As most CHFF readers know, 1978 was the dawn of the “Live Ball Era,” coinciding with the NFL's efforts to open up the offensive game.

But more important, for our purposes, were the structural changes: Namely, the NFL lengthened the schedule from 14 games to 16 games, and it added a wild-card round in the playoffs. It was a new formula that hasn’t really changed much: Oh, sure, there are 12 playoff teams now instead of 10 like there were in 1978. But, basically, the NFL that was then, is now.

So, excluding the two strike years (1981 and 1987) because of their shortened seasons and/or use of replacement players, we compiled a database of the 104 teams to make it to the conference championship game from 1978-2005, focusing on their regular-season statistics.

What were these teams good at? What were they bad at? Were there any patterns behind the winners and losers? Was there a strength shared by the teams who ended up in the Super Bowl? Was there a weakness that haunted the losers?

Our conclusions:

1. SCORING MARGIN IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN HOME-FIELD ADVANTAGEWinning games is all well and good, but the great teams tend to win games and kick ass in the process. This ass-kicking ability is found in scoring margin – points scored minus points allowed.

Cold, Hard Football Facts: 27 of the 104 teams in this study had a scoring differential of +160. These teams went 20-7 in their title game (.741). The team with the better scoring margin went a remarkable 36-15-1 (.706) in title games – that’s a better record than home teams in conference-title play (33-19).

Who this favors: The Patriots (+148) hold a distinct advantage over the Colts (+67), and the Bears (+162) are superior to the Saints (+89).

2. TEAMS THAT PASS THE BALL WELL WIN IN JANUARYConventional wisdom, not to mention your average pigskin “pundit,” says that you need to run the ball to win in the playoffs.

The Cold, Hard Football Facts say otherwise: It’s important to pass the ball well. It’s not as important to run the ball well.

We looked at the average rank of all 104 teams in this study in four key areas: yards per pass attempt, yards per rush attempt, defensive yards per pass attempt and defensive yards per rush attempt.

The 104 conference-championship contenders ranked, on average:

* 8th in yards per pass attempt * 10th defending against the pass * 12th defending against the run * 13th rushing the football

Running the ball, in other words, was the least important indicator.

Cold, Hard Football Facts: Teams with a greater average per pass attempt went 29-23 in championship play. An average of 7.0 yards per pass attempt seems a good place to be: Teams that average 7.0 YPA or better are 18-11 in championship games.

Who this favors: The Colts (7.89 YPA) and the Saints (7.98 YPA) were among the very best in the league this year at moving the ball via the pass. The Patriots (6.81) and Bears (6.70) were not.

3. BAD RUN DEFENSES DON’T WIN SUPER BOWLSThis one simply confirms conventional wisdom. But what is surprising is that plenty of teams with bad run defenses have reached the championship round – they just haven’t gone on to win Super Bowls.

The average championship contender allowed 3.84 yards per rush attempt and ranked just 12th in this category. That’s pretty average for the best teams of the post-Star Wars generation. However, a lot of bad run defenses brought down the average.

Cold, Hard Football Facts: A full quarter of the teams in this study (26) ranked 20th or worse in yards per rush. These 26 teams went 9-17 (.346) in title games. Teams with the better run defense in the regular season went 32-20 (.615) in title games.

Who this condemns: As we’re sure you know by now, the Saints and Colts had the two worst run defenses in the league this year, and two of the worst in history (Saints allowed 4.94 YPA; Colts allowed 5.33 YPA). The Patriots (3.88 YPA) were 10th and the Bears (3.96 YPA) were 11th.

4. THE 10-6 SAINTS MIGHT AS WELL PREPARE FOR THE PRO BOWLThe list of Super Bowl champions with 10-6 records in the regular season is very short: It includes only the 1988 49ers, a team led by Joe Montana. We watched Joe Montana. We drank watching Joe Montana. And you, Mr. Drew Brees, are no Joe Montana.

There have, however, been three 11-5 Cinderella teams to win the Super Bowl title – the 1980 Raiders, 2001 Patriots and 2005 Steelers.

Cold, Hard Football Facts: Thirteen teams 10-6 or worse have made it to the championship round since 1978. They have gone 2-11 (.153). And one of those wins came when the 9-7 Rams beat the 10-6 Buccaneers in the 1979 NFC title game.

Who this condemns: As we indicated, it's the Saints. Every other championship contender won at least 12 games in the regular season – and that’s about the minimum number of wins your team needs before you can reasonably expect to win a Super Bowl.

Plus, as we showed you before this whole playoff mess started, it’s extremely rare for a team with a three-game disadvantage in the regular season to beat an opponent in the playoffs. So expecting the 10-6 Saints to march into Soldier Field and beat the 13-3 Bears definitely goes against the grain.

5. TURNOVERS ARE SO F***ING IMPORTANT IT’S SCARYThis is not exactly a news flash, but the numbers are scary. For most of the stats we tracked, the overall difference between winning and losing teams was low, in the 5-15 percent range. But in turnovers, the difference was as wide as the gap between Michael Strahan’s teeth: Winners were +9.1 in turnover margin; losers were +5.7. That’s a 61 percent difference.

Cold, Hard Football Facts: Teams with a higher plus-minus in turnovers went 34-16-2 (.680) against their ball-protecting inferiors in the title game. Teams with a negative plus-minus (more giveaways than takeaways) went 6-12 (.333) in the title game.

Who this condemns: The Saints (-2) were one of just two teams this year to make the playoffs with a negative turnover margin. The other was Seattle (-8). The rest of the final-four contenders are bundled among the league leaders: Chicago (+8), New England (+8), Indy (+7).

6. DEFENSE WINS CHAMPIONSHIPSThis is another gridiron aphorism soundly supported by the Cold, Hard Football Facts. The big-time offenses garner all the headlines. The big-time defenses garner all the rings. Even the great offensive teams that have won Super Bowls – the 1994 49ers, 1996 Packers and 1999 Rams, for example – had great defenses, too.

Cold, Hard Football Facts: 32 teams reached the title round after allowing 300 or more points in the regular season. Only three of those 32 teams went on to win the Super Bowl – the 1980 Raiders, 1983 Raiders and 1998 Broncos.

Who this condemns: The Colts surrendered 360 points this season – only three of 104 championship-game contenders were worse (1981 Chargers, 1983 Seahawks, 2000 Vikings). Those three teams lost their championship games by an average score of 33-7. The most points surrendered by a Super Bowl-winning defense was 338 (1983 Raiders).

7. BADASS PASS DEFENSES ARE TOUGH TO BEATWe discussed the importance of passing yards per attempt as an easy and highly effective indicator of offensive success throughout the season. It works for defenses, too: If you can limit the yards per pass attempt of your opponents, chances are you’ll be a pretty good defense – and a good team.

Further proof of its effectiveness is found in this study: There is a huge correlation between stopping the pass and winning Super Bowls.

Cold, Hard Football Facts: Defenses that led the league in yards per pass attempt were 7-2 in title games (.778). Six of the nine went on to win the Super Bowl. The Bears' defense this year leads the league in passing yards per attempt. Teams that entered the conference title game defending better against the pass went 33-19 (.635).

Who this favors: The Chicago defense held opponents to 5.36 yards per pass attempt. Not only did the Bears lead the league this year – they had the best pass defense of any team in the study, edging the 1995 Packers (5.41).

All four 2006 title teams were in the top half of the league in defensive yards per pass attempt: Saints 9th (6.02), Colts 12th (6.15), Patriots 13th (6.18).

8. RUNNING THE BALL IS AN OPTION, NOT A NECESSITYAgain, the “pundits” tell you that running the ball is a necessity. Again, the Cold, Hard Football Facts prove that the “pundits” are idiots. ESPN "analyst" Merrill Hoge, for example, has built a broadcast career out of pounding on his desk and declaring that teams must run the football to be successful. ESPN "analyst" Merrill Hoge doesn't have a clue.

It’s remarkable to see how many teams with mediocre or downright bad running games have advanced to the final four – and on to the Super Bowl.

* The average title-game winner rushed for 4.135 YPA in the regular season. * The average title-game loser rushed for 4.069 YPA.

That’s a difference of less than seven-hundredths of a yard – or about 2.5 inches per carry.

Cold, Hard Football Facts: Among the 11 worst rushing attacks to play in the Final Four since 1978, five went on to win the Super Bowl (1981 49ers, 1990 Giants, 2001 Patriots, 2002 Buccaneers, 2003 Patriots).

Who this favors: It doesn’t favor anybody. None of the four teams excelled at running the ball this season: The Colts ranked 16th (4.01 YPA); Patriots, 18th (3.95 YPA); Bears, 23rd (3.81 YPA); Saints 26th (3.73 YPA) – which only goes to prove that Hoge is an idiot and that "running the ball in January" is the most overrated cliché in pigskin "punditry."

As for the Bears-Saints game, I want everyone to shut the hell up about Rex. Check the stats - he had the second most games with a passer-rating above 100 this season (behind Bulger). Sure, he had some crappy games, largely when A) the Bears had already basically wrapped up home-field, or B) he took an opponent too lightly. He's a first-year starting quarterback, and he went 13-3. Give me a break with the Rexcrement jokes. First year QBs have lapses in focus and preparation, and when Rex's back has been to the wall and he's gotten prepared, he's been unstoppable.

Look at last week: Rex made one mistake (the fumble; the interception went right off of Muhammad's hands, and if football had a way to assign the INT to Muhammad it would have). He also had his receivers drop some huge balls (Muhammad above, and Berrian on a crossing route that would have given the Bears a 4th Qtr. TD that would have ended the game). Ron Turner also got away from running the ball in the 2nd half, which won't happen this week. Other than that, what did we see? Deft touch (the pass to Berrian, which was a thing of beauty), good decision making (dump off passes to Benson, throwing it away when he had nothing, taking the short passes), and saavy leadership (looking off the safety on the big Rashied Davis 30 yard pass in OT). Rex is going to shock a LOT of people with his excellent (and, in a weak QB NFC, Pro Bowl worthy over Romo) play on Sunday.

The Bears' biggest concern is actually their defense, but I'm not worried there, either. They're ready to shut up all the doubters. This team is ANGRY. And you will not like the Bears when they are angry. Expect a physical pounding on the Saints by some pissed-off Bears, who are feeling slighted after being 13-3 this season and being #1 in the NFC, only to be picked by the "experts" to lose this weekend.

Bears 35-Saints 10. Brees has 2 big INTs, Bush has a fumble, Rex throws for 280 and 2 TDs, Benson hits the end zone, and Hester gives the Bears good field position all game.

I agree on the Bush fumble - don't know about the Brees picks. Is it just me, or does it seem like every time Bush touches the ball I feel like he is going to fumble it. I have no idea what his stats are in that area, but just watching him he seems like he is carrying the ball way away from his body and he doesn't look very big compared to anyone on the field...just fumbles waiting to happen. Now that I live in Chicago I kinda want the bears to win, but then again, I don't want to give all these people around me too much joy while I suffer watching Coughlin destroy the Giants.

i'm with mikpcfl -- i'm in a bit of a mourning period. i think if the colts were playing anyone else, i'd me more interested in the game. however, since they're playing i team i equally wish demise upon, and its impossible for BOTH to lose, its a tough call. i'll still watch though.

and as far is this Saints = America's Team BS... a) it would have been more powerful if it happened last year. b) if i were a New Orleans resident and fan i'd be telling all the bandwagoners to fuck off. where was all this love for N.O. when it was needed?

The Forbes numbers, I believe (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) measure current value (which, as I write this, I realize is probably the ONLY way to measure such a thing).

I guess my point is that I can imagine NO team that if sold and placed in capable management/ownership hands (McCaskey's, I love you, but at some point you will have to let go) would out-earn or out-profit the Bears. Too big of a following (basically all of Illinois, parts of Wisconsin, north Indiana, and then Chicago transplants around the country), and too big of a passion for football in this city (compared to, say, NYC, where baseball is arguably king).

Plus, imagine if a guy like Reinsdorf (a nightmare for me, as a Cubs fan) got ahold of the Bears. Can you IMAGINE the revenue he could build out of a Chicago sports network featuring the Bulls, Bears, and White Sox? (the only thing that could surpass it would be if you replaced White Sox with Cubs, in my opinion).

Also, if we're going to discuss marquee franchises, arguably the fact that SO many ex-Bears continue to do really well for themselves has to account for something....I mean, guys like Ditka, Fridge, McMahon, Butkus, etc. all are still making tons of money off their Bears connections....even Steve "Mongo" McMichael is pulling in cash as an ex-Bear. These guys are legends, and a lot of that has to do with the marquee-value of the Bears.

Is it just me, or is the NFC Championship game not Bears versus Saints, its Bears versus the entire flippin' country?!

I am not a Saints fan. While the story is nice, I'm pulling for my Bears all the way. There will be many disappointed people come Monday when Da Bears get ready for a rematch from 20 years ago when they last met the Patsies in the Superbowl.

Watch for Tom Brady to pull Tony Eason part 2 when he finally faces a real team in the big game!

Well CM you didn't make my life any easier having to spend an hour scrolling down that from that shitty analysis.

Anyway can anyone please explain to me why it is Peyton’s time this year? Why the defense which three games ago was going to keep them from wining a playoff game this year is all sudden being compared to the 85 Bears? Why this year’s crappy Colts team in the league?

Personally I think the media is just full of shit.

Seriously Shanoff grow a set…you pick two teams to win, but then you write that you want the other two teams to actually win the game? Is that some type of grade school jinx? Or are you just covering all you bases so no matter what happens on Sunday you can convince yourself that you’re a genius and you picked the winners? Or are you so biased you can not make a single rational comment? Don’t hold the Colts ball in your mouth and then pick the Pats. Be a man, make some pics.

Well CM you didn't make my life any easier having to spend an hour scrolling down that from that shitty analysis.

Anyway can anyone please explain to me why it is Peyton’s time this year? Why the defense which three games ago was going to keep them from wining a playoff game this year is all sudden being compared to the 85 Bears? Why this year’s crappy Colts team in the league?

Personally I think the media is just full of shit.

Seriously Shanoff grow a set…you pick two teams to win, but then you write that you want the other two teams to actually win the game? Is that some type of grade school jinx? Or are you just covering all you bases so no matter what happens on Sunday you can convince yourself that you’re a genius and you picked the winners? Or are you so biased you can not make a single rational comment? Don’t juggle the Colts ball in your mouth and then pick the Pats. Be a man.

I think the Indy defense is legit in the playoffs. One thing that I haven't really seen mentioned regarding how the overnight transformed is the fact that for basically the first time all season the defense is playing with all the players active. Most of the season the Colts D was running with on band-aid fixes. Bob Sanders went down and people got shifted all over the field. They were on a 4th string safety for awhile. As of the playoffs, all those guys are back, and now they are all playing at their natural position, and it shows.

With all that said, I think the defense plays about as good a game as the past 2 weeks. At home on the turf and in the loudest stadium in the league, it is going to be hell for the Pats offense. This defense is very fast and I think Brady is going to be scrambling around a lot unless the Pats can get a running game going early. Maroney has been somewhat of a no-show in the playoffs so far, and Dillon just doesn't scare me anymore. So it's kind of a toss-up on whether that running game can get to high gear or not.

I honestly think this game is going to be a blowout victory by the Colts. This team is tired of all the media talking about how they can't beat the Pats in the playoffs, Peyton can't take them to the Superbowl, Dungy can't get a team to the superbowl, etc. This one game is their chance to end ALL of it. I would actually go so far to call this a game of destiny. Nobody expected the Pats to beat the Chargers last week, but by that happening, Indy got home field advantage back and the opportunity to play their biggest rivals with a Superbowl berth on the line. It is a perfect storm scenario for the Colts.

lastly, Peyton has had 2 subpar games now in the playoffs and you just can't expect him to be held in check for a 3rd week in a row. I think Harrison, Wayne and Dallas Clark spread the field with some early big gain plays, and then Addai and Rhodes will be free to get the running game kicked in. Total rout in my mind.

The NFL sucks right now- I have no interest in ANY of these teams. And I also LOVEEEEEE how the WWL is conitnuing to suck Manning's cock by trotting out their analysts to say the Colts are the Superbowl fav. have they learned NOTHING from the last couple of years?

FYI - Sander Played in the first Patriot-Colts game and that Patriots had over 200 yards rushing. What doomed the Patriots in the first game was 5 turnovers and even with 5 turnovers they had the ball with a chance to tie the game at the end.

Generik- You may be in a huge minority thinking that this game is going to be a blowout, but I agree with most of the analysis.

People seem to be forgetting that last year's Colts team had one of the best defenses in the league. This year, with most of the same guys, they should have been just as good, but with Sanders and Simon both out for over 3/4 of the season, the run defense was terrible.

Now they're back and the defense is back to how it should have been this year, and everyone is surprised.

The biggest thing in my mind though about this Colts defense that no one seems to be mentioning is the sudden resurection of Dwight Freeney. He was terrible this year but in the last couple of months he has really come on hard in big games.

I think (and it scares me a little to say this) the Colts are going to try to force Tom Brady to pass the ball against them because they feel that their secondary, when healthy, can keep up with anyone. If Brady is dropping back to pass a majority of the time, it gives Freeney all the more opportunity to make some big plays.

Just got done reading Simmons' latest article about how the Pats are becoming the Yankees. I was hoping for something insightful, but instead he blames the people who can't understand just how great this team is in the salary cap era. He alludes to the fact that people who hate the Pats aren't big enough football fans to see how special they, and the game against the Colts, are.

I suppose he is blinded since he's a fan, but the big reason for hate is the belief that Pats fans have become unbearingly obnoxious over their successes. Always playing disrespect card, seeing Brady/Belichick as gods, and immediate dismissal for those who don't agree with them; not unlike the fans who believed that Jeter, Bernie and Paul O'Neil held the keys to the world.

Of course by getting a couple of his required digs at Manning, justifying the Pats fans' actions by saying anyone else would do it with their team, and doing a cheesy flip-flop on his prediction of the game, he is supporting the non-Pats fans' reasons for hate.

I haven't read the Simmons article yet, but that was kind of my point. The Patriots are a great team in this era. Their fans should be relishing it. But being great in this era isn't enough to put them among the all-time great teams, even if they win a few more Super Bowls. From my experience, they seem to get all the breaks and because of the era we are in, they get slurped up higher than they should be. No denying they are a great team, but people keep touting them among the best ever, and I just do not see it.

You know, I probably would be rooting for the Saints if I didn't keep seeing and hearing statements like that. I like Rex Grossman for whatever reason, I like Lovie Smith, and I cringe to think of the barrage of medai coverage that would preceed a Saints Super Bowl berth. It's like with the 2004 Red Sox, only this time I'm getting sick of the team before they make the big game.

I was also disappointed with the Simmons article. When he made the comment about Brady last weekend reminding him of Bird and Manning... not so much. Well, Jesus Christ, man. One of those QBs made a game-losing interception throw as the game was winding down. I mean, WTF?

Seriously, under what criteria do you consider the Bears the NFC's marquee team? Pretty sure nobody outside of the midwest cares about the Bears (& I live in Iowa). Dallas, Green Bay, San Fran, NY Giants, Washington, & Philly all have to rank higher than the Bears when it comes to a national following.

Also, the politically correct thing to do is to root for the Saints, but there's no way in hell I would be able to put up 2 weeks of non-stop inspirational, heat-warming New Orleans stories. Can you imagine how even more insufferable the media hype for the Super Bowl will be if the Saints are involved? I get sick to my stomach just thinking about it. Seriously, besides playing their home games in the city, what exactly do the Saints have to with tragedy of the hurricane. The Saints are made up of millionaires who I'm sure weren't within 500 miles of the city when the hurricane struck. Here's to hoping Chicago wins this weekend so that the media will be forced to come up with stories that actually have something to do with football.

I'll also be rooting for the Colts this weekend because I'm sick of Peyton always getting ripped on for not getting it done in the playoffs or against New England. He's gonna go down as the greatest quarterback who ever lived regardless of whether or not he wins a Super Bowl, but a win over New England en route to the Super Bowl should finally shut up his critics.

CMfrost - The Pats only got 148 yards in the first meeting against the Colts. Far from over 200. Bob Sanders did play that day and he was a huge factor in the win with an interception. I don't recall at this time if the Colts had Booger McFarland on the team yet, but I am pretty sure Rob Morris wasn't starting on defense at that time. Since they have put him back in the starting lineup he has been a huge help with stopping the run.

Luke Bell your an idiot...If anything that had more to deal with then any other team in History. They have to deal with more teams, more traveling, and the big one, FREE AGENCEY. I watched Super Bowl 36 yesterday and do you know how many starters are still on the pats? 3! 3 out of 11. Defensive starters. Offensively? 2 - Tom Brady and Matt Light. They have Kept 5 out of 22 starters. That is amazing.

Seriously if you’re not excited for this game you are not a football fan. Everyone complains that the Patriots wont let this respect thing go. But no one gives them any credit.

Second people are sick of seeing Brady? What about Manning? he is on every single NFL commercial imagine what is going to happen if he ever wins a super bowl? If you got sick of Brady that quick, Manning will be widely hated by 2008.

Why are the Pats the Yankees? Because they spend lots of Money? No or is it because they win? Jesus Patriots haters are so petty. Just because they are doing everything any other franchise wishes to do doesn't make them evil.

I swear if this team was anywhere but New England no one would be making this comparison, people just assume that because Foxboro is near Boston, every person thinks only about the red sox - Yankees.You people are not football fans, you are just like women reading the tabloids.

mgar, It has nothing to do with where the Pats are from. It has everything to do with the fact that they keep winning. They play in a division that is one of the worst in the NFL so in my mind they get 6 cupcake games a year. You can almost say the same about the colts. I don't like the fact that Manning is always on TV either, but being a colts fan, I dont think I will be hating him anytime soon.

The point is that the pats have a very good TEAM and an extremely good system. Brady has never done anything to impress me either. He generally doesnt throw deep with very good accuracy and their offensive gameplan is generally to control the clock with the run and then move the chains with short check down passes. It is a very good system, but I think Brady gets more credit than he deserves because in my opinion, he doesnt ever have to be that good.

Ummm, every team in this era has to deal with the same things the Patriots do. Thanks for proving my point. The Patriots are the best in this era. They can play the cap and find hidden gems that produce for them like no other team. I am giving them all the credit and respect in the world--they are the best in this era. Does that mean they would beat the '96 Packers, the '92 Cowboys, or any of those 80's 49er teams? No way. It's a totally different era.

They are like the Yankees because nobody but their pompous fans want to see them win. Take off the blinders. It has nothing to do with unlikeable players or outspending everyone else.

"The Patriots are a great team in this era. Their fans should be relishing it. But being great in this era isn't enough to put them among the all-time great teams, even if they win a few more Super Bowls. From my experience, they seem to get all the breaks and because of the era we are in, they get slurped up higher than they should be. No denying they are a great team, but people keep touting them among the best ever, and I just do not see it. "

Did the 60's Packers have free agency and this many teams? Did the 70's Steelers have it either? This Era is so much harder then the past.

Tim you are out of your mind to think that Brady hasn't done that much to impress you. Your argument is so flawed I dont know where to begin.

First off, he doesn't throw deep because he's got nobody to throw it to. Not one receiver on that team has break away speed. With the exception of Deion Branch, he's never played with a receiver that has had any sort of speed. The few times a season he does open it up result in a quick six NE.

2. How can you not be impressed by all those 4th quarter comebacks he's fueled. The most recent one last Sunday says it all. No way does Manning had a shitty day and then come through with that 3rd and 10 throw to Reche on the GW drive.

3. Nobody works the check downs like he does. Thats not a bad thing, thats a great thing. 90% of the QB's in the NFL never get past a 2nd read yet Tom manages to always find the open man.

I know you're a colts fan so this might be tough to swallow but Peyton would have to real of 5 superbowl wins in a row to be included in the same conversation as Tom Brady. When its all said and done, you'll hear about Tom, Joe Montana, Elway, Young but no Manning.

The only thing "harder" about this era is keeping your good team together, which as I have said repeatedly, the Pats do better than anyone. When you judge them with their peers, the Pats are by far the best team out there. You think this puts them among the all-time greats by default, and I obviously do not.

Just keep in mind that before free agency, it was harder to build a championship team and easier to keep it together. Now, it is easier to build one and harder to keep it together. I would say that is an argument that it is easier to win these days, as everyone is muddled around .500 and a team can go from shitty to good to shitty in 3 consecutive seasons. The Patriots greatness is that they have maintained their quality (relative to the league) in this era.

I think Brady is underrated by fans outside of New England. those of us that see him every week get more insight as to the little things that he does so well. I agree that he hardly ever throws the deep ball, but you have to acknowledge the lack of downfield threats as a factor in that too.

The thing that has always impressed me about Brady over Manning is his composure in the pocket under pressure. You'll never confuse Tom with Mike Vick, but he just has a knowledge of how to avoidf pressure in the pocket and get off a good ball (most of the time). Manning uo until this year has never done that. When it is all said and done though, BOTH of these great QBs will be in the conversation as among the greatest ever to play. I don't agrre that Manning is the best to ever play, no matter how many ring he does or doesn't end up with. Brady neither. That debate is between Montana and Elway and no one else.

As far as this weekend, I'm a huge Pats fan, so I'd obviously love to see them win. But I can't pick them to. Nor can I pick the Colts. There are too many x-factors to this game. Will Manning have another poor outing? Will either defense step up? I don't think the Colts D has played nearly as well as people are giving them credit for, but they have played better than they had in the regular season.

Brady is great. Despite the fact that Belichick was one of the 3 worst Cleveland coaches in history, he's great. The Patriots have done a great job of assembling a team of seemingly mediocre talent, and playing like superstars as a whole. They are the greatest team of the '00's, without arguement. They have succeeded in an era when free agency keeps teams from stockpiling talent, making strategy and personnel decisions all the more important.

I don't see many people doubting this. People are tired of the Pats fans, not the team. The comparison between the Pats and the Yankees is not based on payroll or championships, but the respective fan bases driving people freaking nuts.

The Patriots are great, I'd just rather enjoy it for myself then be told repeatedly how great they are, and how everyone else sucks in comparison.

That is just sad. Between Buck, McCarver, and the rest of the FOX staff for for sports, not just football, they have to be the worst sports coverage on the planet. If we miss another play because they come back from commercial late, I'll throw a rock thru my TV and listen to the radio.

Can we lobby Congress to give the contracts to another network, any ideas...anyone.

If the Patriots win the Super Bowl this you would have to put them among the Greatest Teams Ever or at least acknowledge that this is the greatest run by a team in the history of the NFL. No Team has ever won 4 Super Bowls in 6 Years.

There is no way any of those teams from the NFC have a larger fan following than the Bears, given Chicago's size, media reach, and the fact that Chicagoans (and denizens of the surrounding suburbs) identify themselves as Chicagoans for a much longer period of time than those of other cities after leaving Chicago. (Marrioti even mentioned it this morning - even if he is an idiot - that Chicago has the largest number of citizens who grow up in Chicago and stay here for all their lives than any other city in America, contributing to the hold the 1985 Bears still have on this city).

I haven't read all the posts so this may have been said, but I think Tom Brady is a product of a system. He wasn't that good at Michigan, and he only got a chance because Bledsoe got hurt. I think if Bledsoe had never gotten hurt, the Patriots could probably be in the same boat. Yes, I know Bledsoe is a statue back there, but he still can throw the football.

It's very similar to any of the Texas Tech QB's, only a different type of system. Brady has so many options that he's bound to find someone that's open. The line is awesome so he has all day to throw the football. They basically use the short passing game as a running game when needed and Brady makes the throws. Very similar to what Garcia did in Philadelphia this year. Thoughts?

Brady is a winner and a team player bottom line, extremely competitive and will take hits or risks like juking Urlacher for the 1st down in the Bears game to give his team a chance to win. He is mentally prepared for the game and does not let the game situation affect his game. If he makes a bad play or the Pats are losing or lose he focuses on the next play or game. Peyton sits on the bench with his head down if he screws up, Brady stays positive and plays well under pressure.

If the Pats win, they for sure are on the greatest run in history. Hell, I would put them 1 or 1A as it is now. I still don't think they are among the greatest teams ever though. I think the 80's 49ers, 90's Cowboys, or even the Broncos or Packer Super Bowl winning teams in the 90's would beat them handily.

Now you'd have to balance the "the Pats aren't obviously dominant" argument against them,

against the "Players today are bigger, faster, stronger than 20 years ago" argument.

I don't know if the Pats are all-time great....but you'd have to think Belichick could scheme for Montana and the west-coast....or the Hogs....or the Bears. He actually did with the Giants and came out on top a couple of years.

I couldn't even get to the end of the comments today. Everybody on here who bitches/is bitching about the media coverage of some team or what will ensue if one team makes it to the Super Bowl over another is a complete fuckin' moron.

Seriously, you think that if the Saints don't make it, we won't have two whole weeks of stories about the Bears?! About Grossman overcoming the odds and Lovie Smith being a great guy?

No matter what teams are in the Super Bowl, you ARE GOING HEAR about them on Sportscenter for the two weeks in between. It's the FUCKING SUPER BOWL! What do you expect?

But the biggest reasons you're fucking morons is because if you don't like it....(wait for it)...DON'T WATCH! That's right! What a novel idea. Don't watch Sportscenter, don't read the paper, don't click on that link, don't check espn.com every ten minutes at work for two weeks straight.

YOU are the reason that the tripe that you are whining about gets written!

Seriously, you think that if the Saints don't make it, we won't have two whole weeks of stories about the Bears?! About Grossman overcoming the odds and Lovie Smith being a great guy?

Forgetting for the moment that the Bears in the Super Bowl would mean the greatest 2 weeks of Kissing Suzy Kolber ever, the coverage given to the Bears would not be half as nauseating as the coverage about the Saints would be. I'd rather have Sexy Rexy getting overhyped than reading about how the Saints have fixed New Orleans. No doubt the Saints making the Super Bowl would be a fantastic story. I just wish that story would get told, instead of the one the media would beat us with for 14 solid days.

And in the AFC, if you hate a Yankees/Lakers-type dominant stretch, no matter who and no matter what sport, then you would obviouly root for the Colts to win. Just because the media coverage will be way over the top doesnt mean that some stories will be easier to stomach over the course of two weeks.

And don't give me the "dont watch" speech. What the hell else am I supposed to watch on TV? Beauty and the Geek? American Idol?

Scheme all you want, but those Aikman/Emmitt/Irvin Cowboy teams would have still won. And I *HATE* the Cowboys. That offensive line would make an average back into a stud, and Emmitt was much better than average.

The same argument that the Patriots are better because they keep their team together also works against Bill B. here too. He is scheming against a league that cannot consistently keep their teams together. His schemes in NY were also with a team that was loaded with talent on defense. So he stopped the Niners with that Giants defense, but if we replace those players with the Patriots defense, would we get the same result? I don't know about that. It's a fun debate though.

Beauty and Geeks is hilarious. Just the fact that those bimbos are having to answer questions like "what type of advertising is a billboard call?" and the fact that they are starting to fight over the geeks. Priceless man, priceless.

Patriots64 - You think Peyton just mopes on the bench with his head down when he makes a mistake? It's called studying the photos to learn from the mistake and hopefully avoid it the next time he has the ball. The guy is always studying photos and scheming ways to attack the defense. You make it sound like he is curling into a fetal ball on the bench.

That is the Saints record the last 4 seasons. Granted they had a horrible season last year but it was not to much the lack of talent but their situation. For this to be the GREATEST story ever is far from it. It is not like the subbard was bare to start the season and then you add Bush, Brees, Colston etc. and you have a darn good team. If anything, it shows that the Saints were an underachieving team the last few seasons.

That being said, I hope they still win. I have no interest in any teams and I am all for a good story line and that would be the Saints vs the Colts.

The comparison between the 90's Yankees and the Patriots are about the team, not just fans.

There are only a few stars carried over year to year, Jeter/Brady, Rivera/Vinatieri and Torre/Belicheck. That comparison right there is downright spooky.

They both have a boring team-first, corporate philosophy without any flashy players.

They don't put up big offensive numbers, they're just shrewd and make fewer mistakes.

The Yankees actually did manage their money well in the 90s.

Their fans expect players to come through in the clutch.

It's not so much that we're "already" bored with the Patriots. The Patriots are boring. Casual fans want to see teams like the Colts or Saints win, big fireworks and some star power. The Patriots don't have that. They don't try to break records and they don't win every game in the regular season.

Their fans don't care, but the NFL should. Parity is a myth (Brady trumps all) and there are a lot of superstars sitting at home every January.

Connect With Me

Quickish

About This Blog

DanShanoff.com is a sports-blog spin-off of my long-time ESPN.com column, "The Daily Quickie." Anchored by an early-morning post of must-know topics, the blog is updated frequently throughout the day with new posts and user comments.